Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

Katy Perry is the female judge in the video clip. She's an interesting dude. Raised I think by some hardcore evangelist type parents, she was originally a Christian pop singer. I think that's the case. She's quite stunning, especially her eyes are wonderful to see. But her rant in the video seems a bit staged for the camera and the audience behind it, kinda like a politician.

Thousands of years? Firearms? Thousands of years? Friend....

Yes, I agree with the rest of your post regardless of my take on the solution to our US gun problem which is that we make them as difficult to obtain as they are in Japan. After we make insulin free and charge the corn syrup industry to pay for it.

 

Arms.

Before firearms it was the English longbow. Before the English longbow it was spears of some kind.

Although people have had the right to keep and bear firearms since 1541.

That would requiring abolishing freedom here like they've done in Japan.

 

I have a fairly strong disagreement with your incessant attempt to convolute a concept as open to interpretation as freedom with the ability to own an FN90.

 

being able to own the same type of weapons that a civilian government is willing to use against the people is a prime example of freedom

 

Nope. Balance of Power, Yes. Freedom, no. Not when that same civilian society allows citizens to go to war on its behalf before it allows them to have a drink or smoke a cigarette.

 

Wrong. it is a freedom even if there are not other freedoms. BTW I think the age of majority should be 18 for EVERYTHING

 

It is a freedom even if there are not other freedoms? Yale Law teaches this? If I am 18 and I cannot smoke a cigarette or drink a beer, then my freedom is still assured because I can buy a Henry rifle?

 

No convolution. The right to keep and bear arms has been a pillar of freedom for thousands of years.

Here is an example of our Second Amendment as it existed in England 1400 years ago:

"Ceorl, also spelled Churl, the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were killed, was valued at 200 shillings."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ceorl

"Fyrd, tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately AD 605. Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied free male. It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd. Fines imposed for neglecting the fyrd varied with the status of the individual, landholders receiving the heaviest fines and common labourers the lightest."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/fyrd


I assume you refer to the FN P90 submachine gun. Although I can make a sound academic argument that full-auto weapons are covered by the Second Amendment, I don't think you'll have to worry about the courts enforcing that.

However, it is likely that the Supreme Court will rule that people have the right to have semi-auto-only AR-15s with 30 round magazines.

 

You're ok then with the lack of freedom to smoke a joint, as long as you can buy a gun?

 

In my opinion, the second amendment has been irrelevant since standing armies came into being in 1792.

If the people in the US want some sort of universal arms right bill for all Americans, let them pass such an amendment.

 

you'd have MORE freedom if you could buy that other stuff

 

in my opinion you don't understand federalism or the tenth amendment

 

I don't actually pay a lot of attention to drugs, either pro or con.

I do know that all federal drug laws are unconstitutional, just as all federal gun laws are unconstitutional (due to the Tenth Amendment in both cases). State and local drug laws are Constitutionally legitimate however.

I don't see any reason why pot should be illegal. Same with things like LSD and psychedelic mushrooms. If anything came up on the ballot to legalize those, I'd vote for legalization.

I don't know about things like cocaine and heroin though. On the one hand, the war on drugs has been pretty counterproductive. On the other hand, they are pretty destructive drugs. I don't really have answer for what policy should be in their case.

 

Dude, I get your gig with obsessing about gun laws. But please drop the blinders and chat about this stuff like something other than a pundit. Not everyone is into guns and practically they are not a significant accoutrement to most anything that most folks enjoy or tolerate doing in their day-to-day lives. Being twenty years old and not legally allowed to have a beer with a cheeseburger is secondary to being able to walk into the joint with a rifle on your shoulder???

 

Laws tend to be relevant for as long as they remain in force.

The Second Amendment remains in force.

We did. That's what the Second Amendment is.

 

Bit of a side step this, isn't it? Remember, I'm challenging your equating weapons ownership with freedom.

 

this is a gun control thread dude. If you want to piss and moan about 20 year olds not being able to drink-start a thread in an appropriate forum and I will be right there backing you up

 

Nope - when the argument in this thread tends to be toward how gun ownership represents freedom then I'm still in the lane with my challenges: whether you like it or not. So either concede that freedom is at best a secondary or tertiary benefit of gun ownership or address the glaring fact in some other fashion that as a 20 year old here in Houston I can legally walk into the Hobbit cafe and order a Balrog Burger, with a sweet Henry rifle on my arm, and not legally have a fresh IPA to go with it.

 

Actually guns are a part of a lot of people's lives in rural areas.

Maybe not everyone, but still a sizeable number of people.

I would say the age to be able to own an AR-15 should be the same as:

a) the age to have an unrestricted drivers license where you can drive unsupervised,
b) the age to vote in elections,
c) the age to be able to join the military or be eligible for military draft, and
d) the age at which one can be tried in court as an adult.

If ALL of those age requirements are raised to 21, I would not object to the age to own an AR-15 being raised to 21 as well.

Didn't you ask for my views on drug laws?

The historical record is very clear that the right to keep and bear arms has been a pillar of freedom for thousands of years. Note my earlier post about English law from 1400 years ago.

 

I am not sure what the difference is between a primary, secondary, or tertiary benefit.

But I would say that the right to keep and bear arms is a benefit of freedom, rather than saying that freedom is a benefit of the right to keep and bear arms.

The two are inextricably linked however.

 

Fortunately, in Virginia, you can do both.

By the way, I also feel that the right to own firearms and carry them is indeed one freedom among several that are constantly in danger of being eviscerated by the naive and the deceived.

Thanks,

 

you seem unable to figure out that the freedom to own a gun is just that-the freedom to own a gun.

 

I wasn't posting to you. Please respond to my last challenge on our dialog before you interject in this dialog.

 

Seems a bit shady and duplicitous of a claim you're now proposing was all you ever meant was that owning a gun just meant owning a gun rather than meaning that it supports a pillar of establishing freedom. So, not freedom to drink a beer or smoke a joint or have an abortion or change a company with a health care coverage problem. Just to own a gun. Not representative of any other freedoms at all then. Thanks for what I suspect was an unintentional concession.

 

this is becoming mental masturbation. If you can own any gun you want, you have more freedom than someone who cannot own a gun.